1. ' This writ petition is directed against the orders dated 14-4-1990 and 22-10-1989 passed respectively by the learned Additional District Judge, Jhang, and the learned Civil Judge, Jhang, whereby the former dismissed the revision petition against the order of the latter whereby he accepted the application of the respondent No,1/appellant for deletion of issue No,8 and framing of additional issue and shifting the burden of proof.
2. ' The facts briefly are that a declaratory suit was filed by the respondent No,1 /plaintiff Mst. Ghulam Zohra challenging the Mutation No,3301 dated 22-12-1986 recorded on the basis of a forged and fictitious Will executed on 23-12-1984. On the pleadings of the parties issue No,8 which became the subject of dispute was as under:-- "Whether the alleged Will deed dated 23-12-1984 is a forged and fictitious document and Mutation No,3301 dated 22-12-1986 and the order of Collector Jhang dated 30-3-1987 is illegal, void and ineffective upon the rights of the plaintiff? OPP.
3. ' After the framing of issues and before recording of the evidence respondent No,1 moved an application for the production of original Will. The petitioners in their reply denied the possession of the Will and stated that it was alongwith the record of Mutation No,3301. Consequently, the revenue official was summoned who stated in the Court that the original Will was not available on the record. This led to the filing of the aforestated application by the respondent No,1 Mst. Ghulam Zohra for the deletion of issue No,8. Learned Civil Judge vide his order dated 22-10-1989 allowed the application and deleted the issue No,8 as earlier framed and recast the same with the framing of additional issues which are as under:-
(8) Whether the alleged Will deed dated 23-12-1984 was actually and correctly executed by Haji Umar Draz in favour of defendants Nos.1 and 2? OPD Nos.1 and 2.
4. (8-A) If issue No,8 is not proved then whether Mutation No,3301 dated 22-12-1986 and order of Collector dated 30-3-1987 is void and ineffective upon the rights of plaintiff? OPP.
5. ' The present petitioners filed a revision petition which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge vide his order dated 14-4-1990. Hence, this Constitutional petition.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. The learned trial Court in the facts of the case has rightly shifted the burden of proof and recast the issues. It is the petitioners/defendants who are claiming right under the disputed Will. They being the benclicicry of the same had to establish its valid execution. Since in this case the execution of Will has been denied by respondent No,1 through which the petitioners claim to have acquired right, the onus to prove the Will has rightly been placed upon the petitioners. Reliance in this respect is placed upon Muhammad Zaman Khan v. Sher Afzal Khan and 8 others PLD 1984 SC (AJ&K)
138. Hence, no illegality or material irregularity has been exercised by the Revisional Court by disniissing the revision of the petitioners. The petitioners have failed to point out any jurisdictional defect attracting the exercise of extraordinary Constitutional jurisdiction. Resultantly, this writ petition is dismissed in limine.